A Few Things That Sam O'Leary "APPRECIATES"?

[Brian Essi]

Sam O"Leary has a bad habit of using the word "APPRECIATE" in a dishonest way when responding to anyone offering him advice or opposing his position on a subject. His canned and predictable response is "Ms. Smith, I appreciate your remarks." However, while initially seeming polite and thoughtful, O'Leary invariably goes on to completely ignore the speaker's point and simply restates his own predetermined position without ever addressing the substance of the speaker's position. O'Leary testified under oath that he believes this kind of interaction is "deliberation."

Here is a recent example:

From that same Chronicle article:

[url]Kos [from Avon City Council] said he saw Lakewood was having the same controversy with the breed and reached out via email last September to Lakewood Council President Sam O’Leary but received no response.

O’Leary said Monday in an email that he appreciated Kos’ offer, but he did not draft the proposed ordinance.[/url]

The City of Lakewood video archives (i.e. public records) are filled with dozens, perhaps 100s of other examples.

The word "ap·pre·ci·ate" is defined as:

1. recognize the full worth of.
synonyms: value, treasure, admire, respect, hold in high regard, think highly of, think much of

2. understand (a situation) fully; recognize the full implications of.
synonyms: recognize, acknowledge, realize, know, be aware of, be conscious of, be sensitive to, understand, comprehend, grasp; be wise to

From my observations, it seems clear that in nearly every instance when O'Leary uses the word "appreciate", he is being disingenuous and dishonest.

Conclusion: Sam O'Leary does NOT appreciate diversity of views and opinions of Lakewood residents.

Is that a quality of a true leader of diverse Lakewood, or a quality of Faux-leader who is handled by folks behind the scenes?

May I suggest that a few things that Sam O'Leary really appreciates are the support, guidance and PR protection he gets from Summers & his friends.

Photo blocked for review. Image had been reported to Admin.

The picture of Faux'Leary has been inserted with a picture of Summers & his friend to have readers "appreciate" the point of the post.

[Christopher Bindel]

Mr. Essi,

I would appreciate it if you would not alter any of my photos.

Thank you,
Chris

[Pam Wetula]

Sam O"Leary has a bad habit of using the word "APPRECIATE" in a dishonest way when responding to anyone offering him advice or opposing his position on a subject. His canned and predictable response is "Ms. Smith, I appreciate your remarks." However, while initially seeming polite and thoughtful, O'Leary invariably goes on to completely ignore the speaker's point and simply restates his own predetermined position without ever addressing the substance of the speaker's position. O'Leary testified under oath that he believes this kind of interaction is "deliberation."

Here is a recent example:

From that same Chronicle article:

[url]Kos [from Avon City Council] said he saw Lakewood was having the same controversy with the breed and reached out via email last September to Lakewood Council President Sam O’Leary but received no response.

O’Leary said Monday in an email that he appreciated Kos’ offer, but he did not draft the proposed ordinance.[/url]

The City of Lakewood video archives (i.e. public records) are filled with dozens, perhaps 100s of other examples.

The word "ap·pre·ci·ate" is defined as:

1. recognize the full worth of.
synonyms: value, treasure, admire, respect, hold in high regard, think highly of, think much of

2. understand (a situation) fully; recognize the full implications of.
synonyms: recognize, acknowledge, realize, know, be aware of, be conscious of, be sensitive to, understand, comprehend, grasp; be wise to

From my observations, it seems clear that in nearly every instance when O'Leary uses the word "appreciate", he is being disingenuous and dishonest.

Conclusion: Sam O'Leary does NOT appreciate diversity of views and opinions of Lakewood residents.

Is that a quality of a true leader of diverse Lakewood, or a quality of Faux-leader who is handled by folks behind the scenes?

May I suggest that a few things that Sam O'Leary really appreciates are the support, guidance and PR protection he gets from Summers & his friends.

Photo blocked for review. Image had been reported to Admin.

The picture of Faux'Leary has been inserted with a picture of Summers & his friend to have readers "appreciate" the point of the post.

The word "Appreciate" was a favorite of Cindy Marx as well. She "appreciated" everything! A PC word that has become meaningless per overuse.

[Brian Essi]

Mr. Essi,

I would appreciate it if you would not alter any of my photos.

Thank you,
Chris

Mr. Bindel,

No worries.

I appreciate your post and your concern.

Until your post, I did not appreciate that the person who sent me the photo was not the photographer.

I did appreciate that it was altered and felt the parody might be appreciated by readers.

I very much appreciate how your photo captured the friendship and mutual appreciation that Mike Summers and Rick Uldricks must feel for each other.

It is not clear how many in Lakewood fully appreciate the warm relationship between Mike and Rick and the extent to which they appreciate, support and defend Sam.

[Christopher Bindel]

Regardless, using an altered image of any minor for satirical purposes seems like a poor choice. Especially when that child is a known quantity in the community, not the anonymous figure from a stock photo.

[Bridget Conant]

Which ones were the minors?

[Michael Deneen]

Apparently Mr. Uldricks doe not share Mr. Bindel's concern.
He's been splashing the photo all over Facebook in an attempt to smear the Observer.

So his logic is:
The Observer is BAD because it had this very offensive altered photo posted on its board.
Lakewood Citizen is GOOD because it is posting the very same photo on Facebook.
Can someone please explain this twisted reasoning?

[mjkuhns]

My perspective as a creator, user and purchaser of imagery who has spent some time studying and thinking on issues of usage rights, ethics, etc.:

1. My own reaction to this image was that it seemed unhelpfully juvenile. But in addition to people's general right to express their own ideas, it occurs to me that it was basically an instance of the satirical political cartoon which I believe most of us regard as an entirely normal element of public discourse. If seeing this kind of visual satire deployed within the relatively compact community of Lakewood feels upsetting, maybe that should produce a rethink of the broader tradition. At what level of public life does visual satire become fair—if it does?

2. Apparently Mr. Bindel's photo was used to produce this "cartoon" without his permission, and he has now expressed his disapproval, resulting in the Observation Deck's administrators taking down the image. This seems like an appropriate response, and one which should be honored by any other forum or publication interested in fairness and respect. (Unless with Mr. Bindel's approval for reuse.)

3. This is a good reminder to all of us that the innumerable photos on the web were all some individual's work, and individuals pictured within them are also real people. That said, I think the former is a much clearer ethical area than the latter. Photography would become very complicated if a model license were required from every person visible in any published photo. As for minors, I'm not sure that the situation is any different. If the use of a minor's photo is ethically problematic because they are minors, and therefore below the age of consent, that would seem to apply to any use of their photos for any purpose whatsoever. Who are we to say that "oh, but this use would obviously be considered okay," which would still ultimately be a decision, made for someone else below the age of consent?

If only for reasons of practicality, I have to conclude that grounds for objections to use of a minor's photo are murky (unless one wants to extend those objections to all minor photography), but the objections to use of someone else's photo without permission are more clear-cut. And the grounds for ceasing use of that photo promptly upon request from the photographer are entirely solid, and as much a matter of courtesy as of intellectual property ethics.

[Bridget Conant]

So has Christopher Bindel approved the use of his photo by the Lakewood Citizen?

The use of which is not for political satire, but rather a direct attack on a competing media source.

So Bindel, have you asked that YOUR image be removed from that Facebook page or is it OK now that it’s being used to attack the Lakewood Observer?

[Matthew Lee]

This thread and the one on Facebook are very confusing. Could someone explain to me what the fake photograph was? Is it the denied response on Mike DeWine's newsletter or is it something else? Trying to make heads or tails of this at 11.30 PM on a Sunday night is not the easiest thing to do.

[Dan Alaimo]

This thread and the one on Facebook are very confusing. Could someone explain to me what the fake photograph was? Is it the denied response on Mike DeWine's newsletter or is it something else? Trying to make heads or tails of this at 11.30 PM on a Sunday night is not the easiest thing to do.

Someone else might be better able to explain, but meanwhile, here's the definition of "internet troll" from Wikipedia. See if it relates.

"In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement."

[Bridget Conant]

Let’s get back to Christopher Bindel.

Comes here holier-than-thou with the “don’t use my photo” and his phony concern about a “minor” in the photo that you can’t even see, but that SAME photo can be plastered on Twitter and Facebook, arguably with a potentially larger audience, and he’s OK with that.

Can you spell HYPOCRITE?

[Christopher Bindel]

Bridget,

I’m sorry you see things that way. To be fair, I never asked for the image to be removed, I only asked it not be altered. Although I frankly think it was the right decision made by the LO considering their history in supporting intellectual property rights. I was never asked or even informed that my photo would be used in such a manner, and it has never been on the LO. It had to have been lifted from Facebook for use.

My concerns about altering an image of a minor I assure you are in no way “phony.” I am the father of two, and in this day and age, I have real concerns about how photo editing and other forms of cyberbullying may impact my children in the future. Considering many in the community know who the child in the picture is I feel it was unfair and disrespectful to alter his image.

As for requesting the Lakewood Citizen remove the photo, I have not, but I will remind you nor did I ask the LO to remove it. I did express my concern over sharing such an image and advised against it (after I was made aware of it already being posted), but considering the image is of his own son I will not address the matter further unless Sam O’Leary expresses his own disapproval. I will remind you however that he posted a screenshot, he is not the one who altered the image without permission.

[Bridget Conant]

Christopher

Thank you for responding. I do appreciate hearing your side.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Christopher

Thank you for responding. I do appreciate hearing your side.

Bridget

To add to the conversation. The image was not removed because of Mr. Bindel's post. The image was removed because of two complaints that were sent to the Lakewood Observer correctly earlier. And though I am not in total agreement with the premise of either complaint, a decision was made by more than one person to remove the image. For the record Mr. Bindel's post would have also gotten it taken down had it been made through proper and legal channels.

I would say the image does not represent anything having to do with children, as Sam O'Leary is past the age of being called a child, well at least he is out of his teens. There is no recognizable child in the photo.

The Lakewood Observer has always honored intellectual property, and creative ownership of property. The LO havs always stood behind our writers, photographers and illustrators in the protection of their work, and likewise honor the copyrights and works of others.

A very real discussion could be made that the image in question has been given over to public domain with the posting and re-posting of an image that Mr. Bindel had every right to protest in its posted form. If every poster and re-poster has received written permission before from Mr. Bindel and ironically the artist that changed the image. They would retain ownership of the image, but dare I say that horse has left the barn. And as the image has been used to attack the Lakewood Observer, we would be able to use it in our defense, and start to re-post it along with the BS that follows.

Art work, carries a 15% change statue for copyrights to be affected, and protest must come within a certain time frame. Otherwise, like the word Kleenex it starts to fall into public domain. Also satire is protected free speech, which could be represented by...



and...



The Observation I love out of all of this is... POINT MADE AGAIN, even when the Deck and the Lakewood Observer shows a modicum of restraint, love, and accountability the "Haters of Lakewood" and "All That Is Good" in Lakewood come out to once again wear their hate on their sleeve. Pitiful indeed. I guess they can read and hate anything they want, the rest of the city should just shut up and listen to them!

Mr. Bindel, always nice to see you back on the Deck, even if it is for corrective purposes.

.